On January 24, the Arkansas
Secretary of Stateís Legal Counsel, Tim Humphries, ruled that a political
party may circulate a petition for recognition at any time, as long as it
finishes the job in 150 days. The ruling represents a change from policy in
effect from 1997 through 2004. In those years, it was illegal for a new party
petition to be circulated except during the first five months of an even-numbered
year.

The only parties that
have been on the Arkansas ballot (other than for president) in the last 70
years have been the two major parties, the American Party in 1968-1970, and
the Reform Party 1996-1998. Arkansas procedures for getting on for president
are much easier than for other office (only 1,000 signatures are needed for
president). Therefore, many minor parties have been on for president. But
only two minor party candidates have been on the ballot for U.S. Senate in
Arkansas, in the entire history of popular elections for that office (the
voters started electing U.S. Senators in 1914). Except for a Socialist in
1936, an independent in 1978, and a Reform Party nominee in 1998, only Democrats
and Republicans have ever been on the Arkansas ballot for U.S. Senate.

As a result of the ruling,
the Arkansas Libertarian Party is considering qualifying for the 2006 ballot,
and other parties may try as well. Paid petition circulators are much cheaper
in odd years, since there isnít as much demand for their services.

The only states that
still make it illegal for petitions to recognize a new party to be circulated
in odd years are Rhode Island, Texas and Wisconsin.

The Secretary of Stateís
ruling was obtained by the ACLUís Voting Rights office in Atlanta. The ACLU
had won a federal court decision against Arkansas in 2001, Green Party
of Arkansas v Priest, 159 F.Supp.2d 1140.

That decision said the
state must provide some method for a new party to qualify in a special election.
Arkansas was holding a special election for congress in 2001. Since it was
illegal for anyone to circulate a petition to qualify a new party in odd years,
it was impossible for a new party to participate in that special election;
but that situation was held unconstitutional.

In December 2004, the
ACLU had written to the Secretary of State, asking if the state had implemented
the 2001 federal court decision. The Secretary of State responded with his
ruling.

The ruling does not explain
the basis for the new permissive policy, but it seems to depend partly on
the 2001 court decision, and partly on the fact that in 2003, the legislature
had repealed a one-sentence law that had contained the deadline for a new
party to qualify. That sentence had been in sec. 7-7-204(a), and had said,
"The petition shall be filed with the Secretary of State no later than
the first Monday in May before the general election." Since that sentence
is now repealed, there is no explicit law giving a deadline for the new party
petition.

The ruling says, "Please
note that the new party must submit its petition in time to meet the deadline
for candidate qualification." Sec. 7-7-203(j) requires qualified parties
to certify the names of their nominees 60 days before the general election.
Therefore, it appears that a new party can now qualify as late as July of
an election year, since sec. 7-7-204 gives elections officials two months
for the petition verification process.

BURLINGTON
IRV VOTE

On March 1, Burlington,
Vermont voters will decide whether to implement Instant-Runoff voting in all
city elections.

DUE
PROCESS VICTORY

On February 10, U.S.
District Court Judge James C. Mahan, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled that it is
unconstitutional for a state to change the requirements for an initiative
petition in the middle of the petitioning period. Committee to Regulate
and Control Marijuana v Heller, cv-s-05-41. The state will not appeal.

As a result, three Nevada
initiatives qualified for the 2006 ballot that would otherwise not have qualified.
Besides the marijuana initiative, they are the "Second Hand Smoke"
and "Clean Air" initiatives. Nevada requires a petition signed by
10% of the last vote cast. The period for circulating initiatives in Nevada
runs in any even-numbered year from January 1 to mid-November. Then, the initiative
is submitted to the following yearís legislative session. If the legislature
declines to enact it, it goes on the ballot in the year after that.

The problem is that "last
vote cast" is unclear. In the past, the state had interpreted it to be
the number of votes cast in the election held before the initiative begins
to circulate. But this year, the state changed its interpretation, and said
"last vote cast" is the election held just before the initiative
is submitted. The practical difference is huge. In the case of the three initiatives
circulated during 2004, they needed either 51,337 signatures (based on 2002
turnout) or 83,157 (based on 2004 turnout). The initiatives had enough based
on the 2002 turnout, but not enough based on the 2004 turnout.

The court decision is
only two pages, but based on the briefs submitted in the case, it is clear
that the basis for the decision is that U.S. Constitution was violated because
the state changed its interpretation of how many signatures were required,
after the initiative was launched.

POST
OFFICE HEARING IS INTENSE

On February 8, the U.S.
Court of Appeals, D.C., heard arguments in Initiative & Referendum
Institute v U.S. Postal Service, no. 04-5045. The issue is the constitutionality
of a 1998 post office regulation that bars petitioning on post office sidewalks.

Most such hearings are
30 minutes, but in this case, two of the three judges were so interested,
the hearing lasted more than an hour. The three judges were Douglas Ginsburg,
Karen Henderson (Reagan appointees), and Merrick Garland (Clinton).

This lawsuit had been
filed in 2000. In 2002, right in the middle of the case, the Postal Service
changed its understanding of its own regulation. It had originally banned
all petitioning, period. But in 2002 it said that itís OK for petitioners
to stand on a postal sidewalk and ask people to sign the petition. However,
the actual signing could not take place on the postal sidewalk. Instead, the
circulator and the signer had to leave the postal sidewalk for the actual
signing. Or, if the circulator had a partner, the circulator on the sidewalk
could ask the potential signer to go to the location of the partner, and sign
at that other location.

The U.S. District Court
had upheld the regulation as modified, in a decision that stressed that sometimes
petition circulators have bad manners and irritate people. But, that cannot
be the basis of preventing speech. The U.S. District Court Judge had seemed
very uninterested in the case, and had taken more than fifteen months (after
the final oral argument) to issue his opinion.

By contrast, two of the
three Appeals judges were extremely interested in the case, and seemed skeptical
of the regulation, especially since the Postal Service permits voter registration
on its sidewalks. If the act of asking someone to fill out a form and then
sign it is OK in the case of voter registration, it seems peculiar that it
is not OK for petitioning. Filling out a voter registration form takes longer
than signing a petition.

OTHER
LAWSUIT NEWS

California: on
February 2, supporters of Donna Frye (write-in candidate for San Diego Mayor)
lost their lawsuit to have all her votes counted. Lawrence v Murphy, Superior
Court, San Diego, GIC 840839. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.

Illinois: on January
21, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld a state law that tells new political
parties that they must run a full slate of candidates. Green Party v Henrichs,
3-04-642. The party wanted to run candidates for three Iroquois County
offices. Their petition, which was otherwise valid, was disqualified since
the party didnít also run candidates for the 13 county board positions.

The decision says nothing
about the many U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have upheld political party
autonomy. It claims the law is needed to prevent voter confusion. The party
is not appealing.

Illinois (2):
on January 13, plaintiffs in Griffin v Roupas, 04-988, asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear their appeal. The issue is a state law that lets people
vote absentee if they are out of their home county on election day, but wonít
let them vote absentee for any other reason. Some of the plaintiffs work such
long hours and have such long commutes (within the same county) that they
cannot get home in time to vote.

New Hampshire:
on January 5, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties filed a lawsuit in
state court, arguing that the stateís ballot access laws violate the New Hampshire
Constitution. Libertarian Party v Gardner, Merrimack Co. 05-E-0004.

Oregon: on February
17, the U.S. Supreme Court asked Oregonís Secretary of State to respond to
Ralph Naderís ballot access lawsuit. Kucera v Bradbury, 04-872. The
issue is whether it violates due process for a state to create new rules for
petition validity, after the petition has been submitted. The Courtís action
shows that it is taking this case seriously. The Court will probably say whether
it will hear this case in early April.

Utah: on February
1, the State Supreme Court issued a decision in Adams v Swensen, 2004-922,
saying that the stateís laws on candidacy should be construed permissively.
Last year, just before the November election, the Court had let the Republican
Party candidate for Mayor of Salt Lake City withdrew. The party was permitted
to substitute a new nominee. The Court has now explained why it did so.

Vermont: on February
15, the 2nd circuit voted not to rehear Landell v Sorrell, 00-9159.
The original panel had upheld an expenditure limit for Vermont state office,
even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that expenditure limits on
campaigns are unconstitutional, unless public funding is in place. Although
Vermont has public funding for Governor, it doesnít for other state offices.

KENTUCKY
BILL PASSES HOUSE UNANIMOUSLY

On February 17, the Kentucky
House unanimously passed the Secretary of Stateís election law bill, HB 141.
It makes two ballot access improvements: (1) minor party and independent candidates
for president and Congress no longer need to file a declaration of candidacy
on April 1. Now they are free to enter the race as late as August, when their
petitions are due; (2) minor party and independent candidates for president
may now circulate petitions as early as they wish, instead of being prevented
from starting until November of the year before the presidential election.
Kentucky permits presidential stand-ins on petitions, so minor parties can
do the presidential petition even before they have chosen their slate.

OHIO
RESTRICTION COULD BE REJECTED

The January 1 B.A.N.
said the Ohio legislature had passed a campaign finance bill, HB 1, which
makes it illegal to pay petition circulators per signature. The AFL-CIO opposes
the bill and is now circulating a referendum petition. If it gets enough signatures,
the voters will decide whether to enact or reject the law.

HOW
TO COMPARE PRESIDENTIAL ACCESS?

There is a need for an
objective means to compare ballot access among the fifty states. On this page
are two charts, each ranking the states in difficulty, for minor party and
independent presidential candidates. For each chart, the easier states are
at the top, and the hardest states are at the bottom.

The left column below
shows how many presidential candidates (other than the Democratic and Republican
candidates) have been on the ballot in each state, on the average. The period
covered is 1972-2004.

The advantage of using
this method is that it is realistic. Obviously, in a genuine sense, the easiest
states are the states in which the greater number of candidates does qualify.

The disadvantage of this
system is that it covers the last 33 years, and some states have changed their
laws during that period. Therefore, this method isnít necessarily a fair method
to rank states that have changed their laws since 1972.

The right column below
shows the number of signatures needed to qualify an independent presidential
candidate, or the presidential candidate of a previously unqualified party,
in 2004, divided by the number of registered voters in that state as of autumn
2004. When states have different requirements for independent presidential
candidates versus the candidates of new parties, the easier method is used.
If itís ambiguous which method is easier, then the method that has been used
more often has been deemed the easier method.

The disadvantage of this
system is that it doesnít account for other difficulties: severe notarization
requirements, restrictions on who can circulate, early deadlines, how tough
it is for a party to remain on the ballot.

Yet, there is a high
correlation between the two lists. Four states areamong the bottom
six states on both lists: Georgia, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming.

NUMBER OF CANDIDATES

SIGNATURES NEEDED
(%)

New Jersey

8.7

Minnesota

7.8

Washington

7.6

Wisconsin

7.4

Iowa

7.3

Tennessee

6.8

Utah

6.7

Colorado

6.6

North Dakota

5.7

Vermont

5.7

Louisiana

5.6

Rhode Island

5.4

Arkansas

5.2

Michigan

5.2

New York

4.9

Ohio

4.9

New Mexico

4.8

Alabama

4.7

Kentucky

4.7

Mississippi

4.7

Illinois

4.3

California

4.1

Pennsylvania

4.0

Delaware

3.7

Kansas

3.7

New Hampshire

3.3

Alaska

3.2

South Carolina

3.2

Hawaii

3.1

Idaho

3.1

Nebraska

3.1

Maine

3.0

Massachusetts

3.0

Nevada

3.0

Virginia

3.0

Connecticut

2.9

South Dakota

2.9

Florida

2.7

Maryland

2.7

Oregon

2.7

Arizona

2.6

Indiana

2.6

Montana

2.4

North Carolina

2.1

Texas

2.1

Missouri

2.0

Wyoming

2.0

West Virginia

1.8

Oklahoma

1.4

Georgia

1.2

Colorado

pay
$500

Louisiana

pay
$500

Florida

be
organized

Tennessee

.00+%

New Jersey

.02%

Washington

.03%

Wisconsin

.05%

Mississippi

.05%

Delaware

.05%

Arkansas

.06%

Ohio

.06%

Minnesota

.07%

Utah

.08%

Iowa

.08%

Hawaii

.10%

New York

.13%

Rhode Island

.15%

Kentucky

.18%

Alabama

.18%

New Mexico

.22%

Nebraska

.22%

Vermont

.23%

Massachusetts

.24%

Virginia

.24%

Missouri

.26%

Kansas

.30%

Pennsylvania

.31%

Illinois

.33%

Maryland

.34%

Texas

.35%

New Hampshire

.35%

Connecticut

.37%

Maine

.42%

South Carolina

.43%

Michigan

.44%

Nevada

.47%

Arizona

.56%

Alaska

.60%

Idaho

.63%

South Dakota

.67%

Indiana

.69%

Oregon

.76%

Montana

.78%

North Dakota

.82%

Georgia

.87%

California

.92%

North Carolina

1.07%

West Virginia

1.11%

Wyoming

1.57%

Oklahoma

1.73%

IRAQ
BALLOT

Below is a copy of the
Iraq ballot. Iraqi voters had a choice of 111 parties. The April 1 B.A.N.
will include information on the election returns.

LEGISLATIVE
NEWS

Alabama: Rep.
John Rogers (D-Birmingham) has introduced four ballot access bills. H214 lowers
petitions for independent candidates; H215 lowers them for minor parties;
H216 provides for a later deadline for minor parties to nominate; and H221
lowers the vote test for a party. See www.independentalabama.org.

Alaska: the House
State Affairs Committee has already held two hearings on HB94, the Elections
Divisionís election law bill. The companion bill in the Senate is SB76. A
third hearing is planned. The original bill makes two improvements (see Feb.
1 B.A.N.), but the Green Party is working for a third improvement:
to expand the 3% vote test for a party to retain its status, from just Governor,
to either house of Congress as well.

Arizona: Senator
Karen Johnson is trying to amend SB1205 (a bill of election law changes that
originally had nothing to do with ballot access) so that the bill also reduces
the number of signatures needed for a minor party to get on the ballot.

California: AB
43, which deletes the requirement that write-in voters must check the box
next to the write-in line, has a hearing in the Assembly Elections Committee
on March 15.

Hawaii: HB119
and SB1042 both delete the requirement that petition signers must include
their Social Security numbers on petitions.

Illinois: HB 758
reduces the number of signatures needed for statewide minor party and independent
candidate petitions from 25,000 to 10,000; and reduces the district petitions
from 5% to 1%.

Iowa: SF80 makes
it easier for a party to remain on the ballot, by changing the 2% vote test
from the office at the top of the ticket, to any statewide race.

Maine: negotiations
continue on the bills to make it easier for parties to remain on the ballot,
LD329 and LD254. One bill is likely to pass.

Nebraska: on February
9, a hearing was held on LB473. It would make it easier for a party to remain
on the ballot, but would eliminate the ability of a party to be qualified
in just a single district. Libertarians testified for the bill, but Greens
testified against it. Greens felt that the advantage of the bill (eliminating
the need for a party to poll any particular share of the vote in presidential
elections) didnít compensate for the disadvantage. Because of the Green opposition,
the bill didnít pass.

North Carolina:
H88 reduces the number of signatures needed for both minor parties and independents,
and also makes it easier for a party to stay on the ballot. It has 3 Democratic
sponsors and 2 Republican sponsors.

Oklahoma: the
fate of the bill to make it easier for parties to get on the ballot and stay
on, HB 1429, rests with the Speaker of the House. See www.okballotchoice.org.

Tennessee: the
bills to let candidates who use the independent petition procedure use a partisan
label on the ballot are SB1327 and HB1776.

Washington: SB5745
implements the initiative passed by the voters last November, I-872. It imposes
a "top-two" system on congressional and state elections. The initiative
itself had major drafting errors, but SB5745 eliminates those errors.

SB5745 passed the Senate
Elections Committee on February 21. Libertarians and Greens testified against
it, since the "top-two" system will almost certainly keep minor
party members off the November ballot.

However, the bill has
a few helpful features. It cuts the number of signatures needed for minor
party and independent presidential candidates from 1,000 to 250. Also, it
says that the 5% vote test need only be met in presidential/gubernatorial
election years, not the mid-term years. Finally, the bill retains the old
5% vote test, but says it can be met at either the primary or general election.

Madame President
is a work of fiction, set in the presidential election of 2000. The sub-title
is, TheUnauthorized Biography of the First GreenParty President.
It tells an alternative, imaginary history of that election. In the novel,
the Green Partyís choice for vice-president, Rachel Moreno, although little
known, is extraordinarily charismatic, and also extraordinarily lucky.

This review wonít give
away the plot, except to say that the Greens carry Morenoís home state of
Washington.

In the novel, the Democrats
carry Florida, but lose Washington to the Greens. As a result, no presidential
candidate has a majority in the Electoral College. With a Republican majority
in the House, the Democrats realize their only chance of winning the presidency
is to persuade the Green Party presidential electors to vote Democratic for
president, when the electors meet in December. Greens bargain with a great
deal of toughness, and consent to do this only if the Democratic electors
support Moreno for vice-president.

Once the author has set
forth a plot device that enables the Greens to win the vice-presidency, it
is not much of a stretch for him to carry the story a step further. As is
obvious from the subtitle, Moreno becomes president, and she must deal with
September 11, 2001.

A large share of the
novel also is set in the 1980ís, when Moreno and her partner were community
organizers. This part of the book, in this reviewersí opinion, was less interesting
and should have been shorter. One of the best parts of the book covers Morenoís
tenuous situation with Congress, especially in the weeks while she was only
acting President, because the President was alive, but in a coma.

2006
PETITIONING FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE

STATE

REQUIREMENTS

SIGNATURES COLLECTED

Deadline

FULL PARTY

CAND.

LIB'T

GREEN

CONSTI

NAT LAW

REFORM

Alabama

41,012

41,012

*1,200

0

0

0

0

in
court

Alaska

(reg)
9,258

#3,128

*6,748

in
court

0

0

0

Aug.
22

Ariz.

26,835

est.
#20,000

already
on

0

0

0

0

June
14

Arkansas

10,000

10,000

*0

*0

*0

*0

*0

*July
1

Calif.

(reg)
77,389

165,573

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

40,516

Aug.
11

Colorado

(reg)
1,000

#1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

534

337

July
10

Connecticut

no
procedure

#7,500

already
on

0

already
on

0

0

Aug.
11

Delaware

est.
(reg) 280

est.
5,600

already
on

already
on

already
on

257

211

July
15

D.C.

no
procedure

est.
#3,800

can't
start

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug.
30

Florida

be
organized

pay
fee

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

July
18

Georgia

42,676

#42,676

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

July
11

Hawaii

648

25

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

0

July
25

Idaho

11,968

5,984

already
on

0

already
on

already
on

0

Aug.
31

Illinois

no
procedure

#25,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

June
26

Indiana

no
procedure

#29,553

already
on

0

0

0

0

June
30

Iowa

no
procedure

#1,500

0

0

0

0

0

Aug.
18

Kansas

16,477

5,000

already
on

0

0

0

already
on

July
31

Kentucky

no
procedure

#2,800

0

0

0

0

0

Aug.
8

La.

(reg)
1,000

pay
fee

already
on

*940

50

23

virtually
on

Sep.
7

Maine

24,798

#4,000

0

already
on

0

0

0

May
25

Maryland

10,000

est.
29,400

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

0

Aug.
7

Mass.

est.
(reg) 41,000

#10,000

23,900

9,509

56

44

1,168

Aug.
1

Michigan

31,731

31,731

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

July
20

Minnesota

141,420

#2,000

0

0

0

0

0

July
18

Mississippi

be
organized

1,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

already
on

April
7

Missouri

10,000

10,000

already
on

0

0

0

0

July
31

Montana

5,000

#5,000

already
on

0

0

0

0

May
30

Nebraska

4,735

2,500

0

0

0

0

0

Aug.
29

Nevada

7,915

7,915

already
on

0

already
on

0

0

July
7

New
Hamp.

20,299

#3,000

0

0

0

0

0

Aug.
9

New
Jersey

no
procedure

#800

0

0

0

0

0

June
6

New
Mex.

3,782

14,079

*already
on

already
on

already
on

0

0

July
11

New
York

no
procedure

#15,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug.
22

No.
Car.

69,734

law
is void

*19,000

8,900

0

0

0

June
30

No.
Dakota

7,000

1,000

0

0

0

0

0

Sep.
8

Ohio

56,280

5,000

in
court

0

0

0

0

May
1

Oklahoma

73,188

pay
fee

in
court

0

0

0

0

June
21

Oregon

18,381

18,356

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

0

Aug.
29

Penn.

no
procedure

est.
#24,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

Aug.
1

Rhode
Isl.

21,815

#1,000

can't
start

canít
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

July
20

So.
Caro.

10,000

10,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

already
on

July
15

So.
Dakota

8,364

#3,346

already
on

0

already
on

0

0

June
20

Tennessee

41,314

25

0

0

0

0

0

April
6

Texas

45,253

45,253

already
on

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

May
11

Utah

2,000

#1,000

already
on

0

*finished

0

0

Mar.
17

Vermont

be
organized

#1,000

already
on

already
on

0

0

0

Sep.
21

Virginia

no
procedure

#10,000

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

June
13

Washington

no
procedure

law
is unclear

canít
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

can't
start

July
7

West
Va.

no
procedure

#8,724

0

0

0

0

0

May
8

Wisconsin

10,000

#2,000

already
on

already
on

already
on

0

0

July
11

Wyoming

4,774

4,774

already
on

0

0

0

0

Aug.
28

TOTAL
STATES ON

*27

15

15

6

4

-

Three states (Ky., La.,
N.C.) have no statewide partisan races up in 2006, so the chart shows the
requirements for a party to run a full slate for U.S. House.
*means a change since the Dec. 1, 2004 chart.
#means partisan label is permitted (other than "indp.").

SUBSCRIBING
TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you
can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit
card in connection with Paypal, use ban@richardwinger.com.
If you donít use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.